What Is Terrorism?

[Orange_Juice]

Isn't terrifying people what its all about? I think that's pretty obvious

 

[Epsilon Delta]

No, actually, it is not. Terrorism is the name given to gross acts of violence that are perpetrated by OTHERS against us. You see? It only goes one way- "We" can't commit terrorism, only "they" can commit terrorism. It's a very useful term for political elites everywhere. Since only "they" can commit terrorism, any atrocities committed by "us" are actually perfectly justified acts of violence. In ALL cases. If anybody disapproves, then they are supporting terrorists, of course.

 

[jillian]

No, actually, it is not. Terrorism is the name given to gross acts of violence that are perpetrated by OTHERS against us. You see? It only goes one way- "We" can't commit terrorism, only "they" can commit terrorism. It's a very useful term for political elites everywhere. Since only "they" can commit terrorism, any atrocities committed by "us" are actually perfectly justified acts of violence. In ALL cases. If anybody disapproves, then they are supporting terrorists, of course.

explains why you can't tell who's who...

Terrorism is TARGETING of CIVILIAN populations for political purposes.

Words have specific definitions. You don't get to make up new meanings to suit your agenda.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

What?? I just thought that was the definition. At least that what all of YOU have led me to believe.

After all, let's see... let me just think for a second now... What was the toll right now? Our side has lost 3 civilians and the other side, what? like 500 at least?

Goddamn those civilian-killing terrorists!

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I mean, I'd post the numbers, but we all know how that Red Cross is just full of anti-semites, right?

Besides, I know very well that Israel isn't targeting civilians at all. It's just trying to terr- Whoops, I mean, its trying to discipline some of those animals in Gaza.

 

[Munin]

Bush basically invented the new meaning of the word "terrorist" after 9/11, more a political word. But I believe terrorism exists from the beginning of time: using fear as a weapon of war. Even the allies used it in WWII by bombing German cities (comparable with what Hamas is doing now to Israel: bombing a city with rockets) and let s not forget the atom bombs on Japan: they were the biggest acts of terror ever to be conducted.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Bush basically invented the new meaning of the word "terrorist" after 9/11, more a political word. But I believe terrorism exists from the beginning of time: using fear as a weapon of war. Even the allies used it in WWII by bombing German cities (comparable with what Hamas is doing now to Israel: bombing a city with rockets) and let s not forget the atom bombs on Japan: they were the biggest acts of terror ever to be conducted.

OH MY GOD, you MUST be a dirty terrorist. You just compared US to THEM?! That is not allowed. Not only are you anti-semitic, but anti-american. What 'we' might have done in other wars is NOTHING like what Hamas does. Hamas are terrorists, but we could never ever be. We are the good guys, and when we use violence it must be for the greater good, because we represent the course of history.

Amerika Uber Alles! Freiheit!!!!

 

[editec]

explains why you can't tell who's who...

Terrorism is TARGETING of CIVILIAN populations for political purposes.

Words have specific definitions. You don't get to make up new meanings to suit your agenda.

Not any more, it isn't Jill.

Assume that Al Qada targeted a military target...would they call it an act of terrorists?

I think they would, don't you?

But I definitely agree with you that in the past terrorism meant purposefully targeting civilian targets.


I think that should be THE definition no matter who does it.

Sadly, that isn't how it works anymore.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Bush basically invented the new meaning of the word "terrorist" after 9/11, more a political word. But I believe terrorism exists from the beginning of time: using fear as a weapon of war. Even the allies used it in WWII by bombing German cities (comparable with what Hamas is doing now to Israel: bombing a city with rockets) and let s not forget the atom bombs on Japan: they were the biggest acts of terror ever to be conducted.

Straight up LIE. While one can claim the fire bombings might have had terror as a purpose, the Atomic Bombs were used to convince the Japanese Government they had to surrender. And they worked, but only after 2 were dropped and even then the Army tried to prevent the Emperor from surrendering. Both cities bombed were legit military targets.

Here try a few source documents to prove the point.

The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources

with out the bombs we had 3 choices.

1) blockade them and starve the entire population of Japan to near annihalation. Though that wouldn't have worked as the Soviets were preparing to invade.

2) Invade and loss about 100 thousand or more dead allied troops along with another million wounded, while possibly committing genocide of the Japanese race. They intended to arm everyone with bamboo spears and mass wave attack the beach heads. Those that did not die doing that would most likely have committed suicide, as was done on Saipan and Okinawa.

3) Agree to Japan's demands and simply stop the war, leaving Japan with all of it's Chinese possessions and having never lost the war.

Again not likely to work because the Soviets fully intended to invade Japan.

 

[Munin]

Straight up LIE. While one can claim the fire bombings might have had terror as a purpose, the Atomic Bombs were used to convince the Japanese Government they had to surrender. And they worked, but only after 2 were dropped and even then the Army tried to prevent the Emperor from surrendering. Both cities bombed were legit military targets.

Here try a few source documents to prove the point.

The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources

with out the bombs we had 3 choices.

1) blockade them and starve the entire population of Japan to near annihalation. Though that wouldn't have worked as the Soviets were preparing to invade.

2) Invade and loss about 100 thousand or more dead allied troops along with another million wounded, while possibly committing genocide of the Japanese race. They intended to arm everyone with bamboo spears and mass wave attack the beach heads. Those that did not die doing that would most likely have committed suicide, as was done on Saipan and Okinawa.

3) Agree to Japan's demands and simply stop the war, leaving Japan with all of it's Chinese possessions and having never lost the war.

Again not likely to work because the Soviets fully intended to invade Japan.

"The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks near the end of World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the executive order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945. After six months of intense fire-bombing of 67 other Japanese cities, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945, followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare.
The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians."

"Choice of targets


Map showing the locations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan where the two atomic weapons were employed
On May 10–11, 1945 The Target Committee at Los Alamos, led by J. Robert Oppenheimer , recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The target selection was subject to the following criteria:
1 They are larger than three miles in diameter and are important targets in a large urban area.
2 The blast would create effective damage.
3 They are unlikely to be attacked by August 1945. "Any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb."

These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids and the Army Air Force agreed to leave them off the target list so accurate assessment of the weapon could be made. Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target." The goal of the weapon was to convince Japan to surrender unconditionally in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value."

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My purpose was not to compare the US with a terrorist organization as Al Qaeda, but more to indicate that the use of fear as a weapon of war otherwise known as terrorism has been used by almost any Nation on the planet in the past (although in a different way).

The purpose was to scare the Japanese enough so they would surrender much sooner, sparing the lives of many Americans and Japanese (they almost always fought to the death). In the context of the war, it is a weapon more to create fear rather than only destroy military objectives (2 whole cities were wiped of the map).

If Hitler would have completed his atomic bomb (luckely for us, he didn't) and would have used it on London with the purpose to destroy the military depots, industry, ... there then I think many would have considered it more as an act of terror then just a military attack aimed at military equipment.

But I don't see how any city could be a legit military target, I wouldn't find it militarily legit for the Japanese to bomb the city LA with an A-bomb because of the naval base, industry there.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks near the end of World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the executive order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945. After six months of intense fire-bombing of 67 other Japanese cities, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945, followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare.
The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians."

"Choice of targets


Map showing the locations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan where the two atomic weapons were employed
On May 10–11, 1945 The Target Committee at Los Alamos, led by J. Robert Oppenheimer , recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The target selection was subject to the following criteria:
1 They are larger than three miles in diameter and are important targets in a large urban area.
2 The blast would create effective damage.
3 They are unlikely to be attacked by August 1945. "Any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb."

These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids and the Army Air Force agreed to leave them off the target list so accurate assessment of the weapon could be made. Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target." The goal of the weapon was to convince Japan to surrender unconditionally in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value."

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My purpose was not to compare the US with a terrorist organization as Al Qaeda, but more to indicate that the use of fear as a weapon of war otherwise known as terrorism has been used by almost any Nation on the planet in the past (although in a different way).

The purpose was to scare the Japanese enough so they would surrender much sooner, sparing the lives of many Americans and Japanese (they almost always fought to the death). In the context of the war, it is a weapon more to create fear rather than only destroy military objectives (2 whole cities were wiped of the map).

If Hitler would have completed his atomic bomb (luckely for us, he didn't) and would have used it on London with the purpose to destroy the military depots, industry, ... there then I think many would have considered it more as an act of terror then just a military attack aimed at military equipment.

But I don't see how any city could be a legit military target, I wouldn't find it militarily legit for the Japanese to bomb the city LA with an A-bomb because of the naval base, industry there.

Both cities were legit, One was the marshaling area and training area for an ENTIRE Army to resist the coming Invasion, they both were ports as I recall and had War industry and military Army Headquarters.

The Fire bombing utterly FAILED to convince the Japanese Government to surrender. Only the use of the Atomic Bombs finally convinced the Emperor to intercede. Even then the Army, which controlled the Government refused to agree and staged an attempted coup to steal the audio recording of the Emperor announcing the Surrender.

Their purpose was to end a war that had cost MILLIONS of lives and looked ready to cost MILLIONS more as well as potentially eliminate a race of people from the planet. Terror of the people was not the intent, since the people had no voice in the Government anyway. Further the people outside the effected areas would not be privy to the fact only one bomb leveled those cities UNLESS the Government chose to tell them.

 

[Munin]

Both cities were legit, One was the marshaling area and training area for an ENTIRE Army to resist the coming Invasion, they both were ports as I recall and had War industry and military Army Headquarters.

The Fire bombing utterly FAILED to convince the Japanese Government to surrender. Only the use of the Atomic Bombs finally convinced the Emperor to intercede. Even then the Army, which controlled the Government refused to agree and staged an attempted coup to steal the audio recording of the Emperor announcing the Surrender.

Their purpose was to end a war that had cost MILLIONS of lives and looked ready to cost MILLIONS more as well as potentially eliminate a race of people from the planet. Terror of the people was not the intent, since the people had no voice in the Government anyway. Further the people outside the effected areas would not be privy to the fact only one bomb leveled those cities UNLESS the Government chose to tell them.

I agree that they may be legit from the point of view of the Americans who were at war with Japan and needed to end the war, but I don't think the Japanese would agree with you there.

Would you find it legit if Japan would have used the bombs on 2 major American cities (with also strategic targets such as industry included) in order to end the war in their favor (also killing 140 000 and 80 000 casualties in the short term, the majority civilians)?

 

[Gunny]

Isn't terrifying people what its all about? I think that's pretty obvious

For people like you that wish to take the word out of the context in which it is used and accepted, yes.

For normal people who wish to have an honest discussion it's criminals mudering noncombatants in surprise attacks in order to make the general public fear them/their organization.

The latter of course not working for the backwards-assed-thinking lot that wish to present the US government/military as terrorists and the murderous criminals who started the shit as good guys.

You only fool yourselves, and you're stupid.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Haha, Munin, WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!?!?!

Don't you understand? "We" can't commit terror, man! It's not possible! It does not compute! Errorcode304!!!! Errorcode!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I agree that they may be legit from the point of view of the Americans who were at war with Japan and needed to end the war, but I don't think the Japanese would agree with you there.

Would you find it legit if Japan would have used the bombs on 2 major American cities (with also strategic targets such as industry included) in order to end the war in their favor (also killing 140 000 and 80 000 casualties in the short term, the majority civilians)?

It would have been an act of war just as ours was.

As I recall no Germans were tried for bombing London. No Japanese for sending explosive balloons to the US.

 

[elvis]

Both cities were legit, One was the marshaling area and training area for an ENTIRE Army to resist the coming Invasion, they both were ports as I recall and had War industry and military Army Headquarters.

The Fire bombing utterly FAILED to convince the Japanese Government to surrender. Only the use of the Atomic Bombs finally convinced the Emperor to intercede. Even then the Army, which controlled the Government refused to agree and staged an attempted coup to steal the audio recording of the Emperor announcing the Surrender.

Their purpose was to end a war that had cost MILLIONS of lives and looked ready to cost MILLIONS more as well as potentially eliminate a race of people from the planet. Terror of the people was not the intent, since the people had no voice in the Government anyway. Further the people outside the effected areas would not be privy to the fact only one bomb leveled those cities UNLESS the Government chose to tell them.

The Japanese didn't surrender until the Russians declared war on them and invaded Manchuria. The Japanese would have been facing a mainland invasion from both directions.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Bush basically invented the new meaning of the word "terrorist" after 9/11, more a political word. But I believe terrorism exists from the beginning of time: using fear as a weapon of war. Even the allies used it in WWII by bombing German cities (comparable with what Hamas is doing now to Israel: bombing a city with rockets) and let s not forget the atom bombs on Japan: they were the biggest acts of terror ever to be conducted.

Out of context you make a good argument, but false premises lead to false conclusions no matter how sound the logic.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I agree that they may be legit from the point of view of the Americans who were at war with Japan and needed to end the war, but I don't think the Japanese would agree with you there.

Would you find it legit if Japan would have used the bombs on 2 major American cities (with also strategic targets such as industry included) in order to end the war in their favor (also killing 140 000 and 80 000 casualties in the short term, the majority civilians)?

Only if we had first attacked Japan. Japan was the aggressor.

what is it with the out of context arguments with people here? what age are you? private schooling? college? grad school?

 

[Munin]

It would have been an act of war just as ours was.

As I recall no Germans were tried for bombing London. No Japanese for sending explosive balloons to the US.

Ah now I understand what you are getting at, you are using the new word "terrorism" (the one defined by the Bush government after 9/11 for political purposes). Therefore you only use it as an insult (terrorist = criminal), not an act of war like it was before.

As for Germany: Many people believed the Germans to be working on a nuclear weapon during WWII, the British managed to sabotage the project multiple times actually. But is still unclear wether they would ever had one or not if the sabotage didn't take place. Although this is interesting: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Drawing uncovered of 'Nazi nuke'

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, actually, it is not. Terrorism is the name given to gross acts of violence that are perpetrated by OTHERS against us. You see? It only goes one way- "We" can't commit terrorism, only "they" can commit terrorism. It's a very useful term for political elites everywhere. Since only "they" can commit terrorism, any atrocities committed by "us" are actually perfectly justified acts of violence. In ALL cases. If anybody disapproves, then they are supporting terrorists, of course.

Massive Mideast rally held in NYC
Sunday, January 11, 2009 | 3:52 PM


Eyewitness News

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Thousands of supporters of Israel rallied near the United Nations on Sunday to declare that the Jewish state's two-week-long military action in the Gaza Strip is an act of self-defense.

"For the last three and a half years, Israel's been bombarded daily by a number of rockets coming from Gaza," said Gov. David Paterson, one of a dozen elected officials who addressed the crowd that filled a block of 42nd Street. "The founding charter of Hamas calls for the obliteration of the state of Israel."

Across town at Times Square, about 150 pro-Palestinian demonstrators waved signs with pictures of dead and wounded children and chanted, "No justice, no peace! Israel out of the Middle East."

More than 800 Palestinians have died in the Israeli offensive, which began Dec. 27 in an attempt to halt years of Palestinian rocket attacks.

Story continues ...